CAN END JUSTIFY MEANS?
A friend posed a question: Does the end justify the means
(when the end is deemed noble)? I replied as follows: Gita advises against it.
We can only try to do or achieve something. But the final result is not within
our control. We have no control over the other effects that may change the
outcome. For this reason, if we deviate from the normal path to achieve
something, we may succeed, but the trail of our actions would generate
different inertia to create other collateral effects that may not be evident
soon, but will definitely affect us in future.
Then the fried questioned more on the principles vis-à-vis
its practice in different cultures and in different epochs. This was my reply
from the Indian point of view.
The Gita stresses the importance of doing one’s duty to the
best of one’s abilities, without fixing the eyes on the goal. This means, first
consider all aspects of your goal and the means to achieve that goal. Choose
the best method under any given circumstances. Take necessary steps to execute
that plan of action in the best possible manner. If the goal is not achieved,
it means either there is a deficiency in your plan or its execution; or
something beyond your control is obstructing it. In the first case, start again
with renewed vigor after review. In the second case try to remove the obstacle
or wait for the opportune time.
But the above statement has certain inherent loop holes and
contradictions, which needs to be resolved. For example, what is “one’s duty”?
It will differ from person to person and situation to situation. Though there
are guide lines for each such situation, the general principle is: whatever is
good for creation (universe), or is harmonious with the creative process of the
universe, without obstructing or overpowering other’s rights, is the duty. To
put it in another way: everything belongs to the God. Hence, take your pick
without disturbing or encroaching upon the other’s share (TENA TYAKTENA
BHUNJITHAA), because God belongs to everyone. The principle here is: we all are
in Gods image. However, God has absolute freedom, while we all are confined –
with reduced freedom. But since God is full, we also are full – though in
reduced quantity. If we take something more, we have to give up something else.
Suppose you have a full cup of tea without milk or sugar. If you want some milk
or sugar to be added, you must remove equal quantity of tea from the cup.
Otherwise it will not enter the cup. If you force-in, some tea will be forced
out.
Then, what is the right course of action? This also differs
from situation to situation. Killing someone is neither right nor wrong. In
fact, sometimes violence is recommended as Dharma. The determining criteria is
the intention behind such action. Killing the enemy in the battle field, or
killing in self-defense is not treated as bad. Killing someone to protect and
uphold a noble cause is Dharma.
Telling lies is generally considered bad. There are examples
when the king protected a wounded bird from the hunter. The hunter demanded the
bird back. But the king refused, as the bird has taken shelter under him. He
offered compensation. The hunter demanded his flesh of equivalent weight. The
king agreed and fulfilled his demand. He is remembered even now for such
sacrifice. But not everyone is as brave as him. Hence there are five cases,
where telling lies is permitted. These are: when a vexatious situation cannot
be resolved with logical arguments, 1) to such person, or 2) to one’s wife. 3)
When one is in dire want of something essential for life, 4) when life is
endangered, and 5) when you are going to lose everything.
These are universal principles that do not vary from epoch
to epoch and from society to society. This is because though our longevity,
culture, habits, food, etc. differ from epoch to epoch and from society to
society, the basic human instincts are the same: food, shelter, rest,
reproduction, which common even with animals. The only thig that differentiates
humans from animals is intelligence – we plan for the future in addition to
respond to situations based on instinct. Animals cannot plan for the future. A purely
consequentialist ethical framework is animal like, because it relies totally on
determinism and submitting to it.
In the present case, an anti-vaxxer woman was influenced (this
was achieved more or less by a lie) so as to eventually agree to let her child
being inoculated. Here the problem is straight forward. The intention was
noble. But it was achieved in a wrong process. The Doctors should have reasoned
with her to get her convinced. They did not try sufficiently, but tried to do a
short-cut by telling her a lie. They are wrong on two counts: 1) they did not
own the child – the mother did. Hence they were doing something for other’s
though with a good intention. They should have tried in the proper process or
stopped at certain level. 2) Unless the life of the child is endangered, they
should not have tried to lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment
let noble thoughts come to us from all around